Chil ild Care and Maternal Employment: Evidence fr from Vie - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Chil ild Care and Maternal Employment: Evidence fr from Vie ietnam

Hai-Anh Dang, Masako Hiraga, and Cuong Viet Nguyen (DECDG & Mekong Development Research Institute) ******************** UNE Business School Seminar Armidale November 2019

• I. Introduction (1)
• Women earn less income, less likely to participate in the labor market, esp. in low- and middle-income

countries (World Bank, 2012)

• We examine impacts of pre-school (age 1-5) child care on women’s labor market outcomes in Vietnam
• strong effect on women’s LMP
• increase probability of working in a formal wage-earning job
• increase women’s total annual wages, household income per capita and reduce poverty
• effect of child care is larger for younger children, and younger and highly-educated mothers
• We address endogeneity issue with threshold in the birth months of children
• children’s enrollment in kindergartens or primary schools based on current age instead of

completed age

• use RDD method to compare children born in December vs. January in two adjacent years

• I. Introduction (2)
• Our contributions
• add to the thin literature on women’s labor outcomes in developing countries
• larger sample
• nationally representative data
• esp., mixed results on impacts of childcare for both richer and poorer countries
• positive impacts in Argentina (Berlinksi et al, 2011), but zero effects for urban Chinese

mothers (Li, 2017)

• elasticity of maternal employment to child-care costs differs due to differences in samples of

women and children, estimation methods, and country contexts (Blau & Currie, 2006; Akgunduz & Plantega, 2018)

• study rich employment outcomes (quality aspects)
• self-employed, employed, farm and non-farm, skilled employment, and wage work
• household-level outcomes, incl., income, poverty, household size, migration, and co-residence

with grandparents

• in the short term and the medium term
• Vietnam is an interesting case study
• despite solid growth, half (44%) self-employed in agriculture, and more than two-thirds (68%)
• f workers self-employed
• lower proportion of women working in a wage job (30%) than men (42%)
• half (53%) of children age 1-5 do not attend child care

• II. Data
• Vietnam Household Living Standard Surveys (VHLSS) from 2010 to 2016
• used full sample of the VHLSS to increase the number of children born in January and February
• Sample size

i. VHLSS 2010: 46,995 households with 185,696 household members. ii. VHLSS 2012: 46,996 households with 182,042 household members. iii. VHLSS 2014: 46,335 households with 178,267 household members. iv. VHLSS 2016: 46,380 households with 175,340 household members.

• III. Child care system
• Some main features
• In 2016, 44% of urban children aged

below 6 attended child care centers and kindergartens, for rural children 35%.

.2 .4 3 3.4 14.6 19.8 32.2 47.7 50.9 68.9 65.6 79.6

20 40 60 80 Age 0 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 2010 2016

Figure 1: Percentage of children attending child care centers

• IV. Estimation method (1)
• Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD)

𝐸𝑗,𝑘 = 𝛽 + 𝛾𝐸𝑓𝑑𝑓𝑛𝑐𝑓𝑠

𝑗,𝑘 + 𝛿𝑌𝑗,𝑘 + 𝜗𝑗,𝑘

(2) 𝑍

𝑗,𝑘 = 𝜀 + 𝜄𝐸𝑗,𝑘 + 𝜌𝑌𝑗,𝑘 + 𝑣𝑗,𝑘

(3)

• One-month bandwidth for children’s born in December and

January

.35 .4 .45 .5 .55 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month of birth Sample average within bin Polynomial fit of order 2

Figure 2: Proportion of enrolled school-age children and month of birth

• IV. Estimation results (1)

Figure 5. Dis. of children by month of birth Table 2. First-stage probit regression (marginal effects)

2 4 6 8 10 12 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month of birth Proportion 95% confidence interval

Explanatory variables Dependent variable is child care attendance Pooled sample Children aged 1-3 Children aged 3-5 Instrument (child born in December)

0.092*** 0.080*** 0.097*** (0.017) (0.018) (0.024)

Age

0.046*** 0.033** 0.048*** (0.013) (0.014) (0.017)

Age squared

• 0.639***
• 0.548**
• 0.697***

(0.189) (0.213) (0.249)

Ethnic minority

0.021

• 0.029

0.049 (0.022) (0.021) (0.032)

Number of years of schooling

0.016*** 0.012*** 0.022*** (0.002) (0.002) (0.003)

Dummy year 2010 Reference Dummy year 2012

0.025

• 0.033

0.013 (0.021) (0.021) (0.032)

Dummy year 2014

0.039* 0.015 0.089*** (0.022) (0.024) (0.033)

Dummy year 2016

0.078*** 0.025 0.088*** (0.023) (0.024) (0.032)

Observations

3,863 1,718 2,145

Pseudo R2

0.029 0.072 0.038

This table reports the marginal effects from the logit regression of child care attendance on the instrumental variable and control variables of mothers. The observations in these regressions are mothers of children aged 1-6. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors in parentheses. Standard errors are corrected for sampling weights and cluster correlation at the commune level. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Source: Estimation from VHLSS 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

Further check on the instrument

• IV. Estimation results (2)

Table 3: The effect of child care attendance on mothers’ employment

Dependent variables Panel A. Short-term effects Panel B. Medium-term effects All children Children aged 1-3 Children aged 3-5 All children Children aged 1-3 Children aged 3-5 Bivariate probit model (marginal effects) Working

• 0.110
• 0.170
• 0.128
• 0.016

0.037 0.146 (0.126) (0.144) (0.090) (0.110) (0.060) (0.124) In wage-paying job 0.411*** 0.490*** 0.408*** 0.377*** 0.477*** 0.333*** (0.010) (0.033) (0.021) (0.024) (0.038) (0.087) In self-employed nonfarm work

• 0.103
• 0.240**

0.070 0.043

• 0.004

0.089 (0.105) (0.092) (0.149) (0.108) (0.150) (0.145) In self-employed farm work

• 0.454***
• 0.563***
• 0.440***
• 0.419***
• 0.384***
• 0.297***

(0.011) (0.053) (0.008) (0.032) (0.078) (0.103) In skilled work 0.108

• 0.146

0.043

• 0.055

0.187

• 0.239

(0.835) (1.260) (0.238) (0.384) (0.143) (0.157) In a formal job 0.257*** 0.172 0.264*** 0.149 0.382 0.017 (0.035) (0.229) (0.077) (0.206) (0.349) (0.296) 2SLS Log of monthly working hours 0.155 0.378

• 0.009

0.293 0.489 0.206 (0.209) (0.358) (0.255) (0.312) (0.470) (0.463) Log of hourly wage 0.572 0.948 0.141

• 0.275
• 0.104
• 0.421

(0.460) (0.649) (0.568) (0.478) (0.511) (0.842) Log of wage for the last month 0.525 0.951 0.113

• 0.078

0.071

• 0.286

(0.410) (0.586) (0.521) (0.523) (0.580) (0.895) Log of total wage for the past 12 months 0.903* 1.165 0.645

• 0.068

0.397

• 0.527

(0.524) (0.743) (0.666) (0.678) (0.733) (1.183)

• IV. Estimation results (3)
• Robustness checks
• 2SLS and control functions (Rivers and Vuong, 1988; Woolridge, 2015)
• vary bandwidths to 2 or 3 months
• falsification analysis

• IV. Estimation results (4)

Table 5. 2SLS regression of household-level outcomes on child care attendance

Explanatory variables Log of income per capita Household is poor Living with grandparents Mothers are migrating Household size Child care attendance 0.428*

• 0.222*

0.009 0.029 0.047 (0.237) (0.124) (0.053) (0.050) (0.363) Ethnic minority

• 0.970***

0.547*** 0.021***

• 0.017***

0.527*** (0.030) (0.018) (0.008) (0.005) (0.058) Dummy year 2010 Reference Dummy year 2012 0.328***

• 0.011

0.039***

• 0.008

0.112** (0.034) (0.019) (0.006) (0.006) (0.050) Dummy year 2014 0.530***

• 0.070***

0.034***

• 0.007

0.094* (0.039) (0.021) (0.007) (0.007) (0.057) Dummy year 2016 0.678***

• 0.106***

0.041*** 0.005 0.127** (0.041) (0.021) (0.009) (0.009) (0.061) Constant 9.316*** 0.323***

• 0.008

0.014 4.193*** (0.101) (0.053) (0.022) (0.021) (0.153) Observations 3,863 3,863 3,863 3,863 3,863

• IV. Estimation results (5)

Table 6. Probability of having a wage job with interactions between child schooling and demographic variables of children and mothers (probit models)

Interaction variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Child care attendance * age

• 0.003

(-0.330) Child care attendance * schooling years 0.010** (2.222) Child care attendance * ethnic minority

• 0.071*

(-1.744) Child care attendance * boy 0.004* (1.794) Child care attendance * birth

• rder
• 0.038

(-1.439) Child care attendance * Lagged grandparents in household

• 0.063

(-1.028) Observations 3,863 3,863 3,863 3,863 3,863 3,863 Pseudo R2 0.103 0.104 0.103 0.103 0.106 0.106

• IV. Estimation results (6)

Table 7. Probability of having a wage job with interactions between child schooling and demographic variables of children and commune variables

Interaction variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Child care attendance * Public child care center

• 0.104

(-1.415) Child care attendance * distance to nearest town

• 0.006***

(-2.795) Child care attendance * village accessible by car

• 0.035

(-0.782) Child care attendance * kindergarten in village

• 0.028

(-0.678) Child care attendance * log of district per capita income 0.063* (1.801) Observations 3,863 2,853 2,853 2,853 3,863 R-squared 0.105 0.071 0.065 0.067 0.123

• VI. Conclusion
• We offer first rigorous study of impacts of pre-school (age 1-5) child care
• n women’s labor market outcomes in Vietnam
• strong effect on women’s LMP
• increase probability of working in a formal wage-earning job
• increase women’s total annual wages, household income per capita and reduces

poverty

• effect of child care is larger for younger children, and younger and highly-educated

mothers

• Policy relevance

child care services can reduce the gender gaps perhaps priority should be given to rural areas, or areas with poor infrastructure opportunity costs for not participating in the labor market will be larger for women as the economy develops.

Thank you

Additional results

Table A.9. The effect of child care attendance on maternal employment using different models

Dependent variables 2SLS Control function with the first step a linear probability model (marginal effects) Control function with both probit (marginal effects) Working

• 0.160
• 0.149
• 0.213

(0.123) (0.166) (0.169) In a wage-earning job 0.526*** 0.511*** 0.393*** (0.199) (0.087) (0.129) In self-employed nonfarm work

• 0.104
• 0.124
• 0.099

(0.141) (0.109) (0.123) In self-employed farm work

• 0.582***
• 0.495***
• 0.446***

(0.202) (0.060) (0.084) In skilled work 0.029 0.079 0.002 (0.177) (0.154) (0.158) In a formal job 0.244* 0.262* 0.227 (0.146) (0.140) (0.146)

Back

Additional results

Table A.10. The effect of child care attendance on maternal employment using different models and bandwidths

Dependent variables 2-month bandwidth 3-month bandwidth Bivariate probit model (marginal effects) Working

• 0.031
• 0.031

(0.073) (0.059) In a wage-earning job 0.405*** 0.398*** (0.008) (0.007) In self-employed nonfarm work

• 0.073
• 0.061

(0.064) (0.050) In self-employed farm work

• 0.409***
• 0.374***

(0.019) (0.024) In skilled work 0.233** 0.155 (0.130) (0.138) In a formal job 0.255*** 0.265*** (0.026) (0.018) 2SLS Log of monthly working hours 0.242 0.207* (0.147) (0.107) Log of hourly wage 0.489* 0.490** (0.294) (0.223) Log of wage for the last month 0.603** 0.519** (0.298) (0.221) Log of total wage for the past 12 months 0.705* 0.773*** (0.378) (0.287)

Back

Additional results

Table A.3. OLS regression of the instrument on demographic variables of women

Back

Explanatory variables Dependent variables Children born in December (one- month bandwidth) Children born in November and December (two- months bandwidth) Children born in October to December (three- months bandwidth) Age

0.000

• 0.010
• 0.009

(0.012) (0.008) (0.006)

Age squared

• 0.012

0.122 0.121 (0.178) (0.122) (0.091)

Ethnic minority

• 0.037
• 0.033**
• 0.023*

(0.024) (0.016) (0.012)

Number of years of schooling

0.003 0.005*** 0.003** (0.002) (0.002) (0.001)

Dummy year 2010 Reference Dummy year 2012

• 0.036
• 0.015
• 0.000

(0.024) (0.016) (0.013)

Dummy year 2014

• 0.065***
• 0.018

0.000 (0.025) (0.017) (0.013)

Dummy year 2016

• 0.020

0.015 0.016 (0.025) (0.017) (0.013)

Constant

0.488** 0.650*** 0.663*** (0.197) (0.134) (0.102)

Observations

3,863 8,159 12,730

R-squared

0.004 0.004 0.002

Additional results

Figure 6. P-value in the placebo analysis

Panel A. 1-3 months difference: 3.3% with P- value<=0.05 Panel B. 1-month difference: 1.8% with P- value<=0.05 Panel C. 2-month difference: 3.0% with P- value<=0.05 Panel D. 3-month difference: 5.5% with P- value<=0.05

.5 1 1.5 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pvalue .5 1 1.5 2 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pvalue .5 1 1.5 2 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pvalue .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pvalue

Back